Thomas Hobbes And John Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

Great Essays
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government highly criticized Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan’s political ideology and view of human nature. The political philosophies of both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, although similar in some ways are equally opposite. This paper will explore contrasting beliefs of both philosophers and critique John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government from a Hobbesian point of view.
It is important to note that Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were not born in the same time period. Due to this, their experiences were heavily influenced by their environment and is a reason why they never aligned which each other accurately. Hobbes view of human nature was shaped by the English civil war which caused him to believe that the life
…show more content…
For Hobbes, the purpose of the contract is keep the commonwealth safe and prevent them from turning back to a state of violence otherwise known as the state of nature. There is no ‘moral code’ in the state of nature so men because they are equal by nature may kill one another as the please (Hobbes, 70). On the other hand, Hobbes is aware that even though man is self-seeking, he also has reason and a desire to live. The will to live will lead them to creating a social contract and establish a common wealth. In contrast, Locke does not see the state of nature as chaotic but views it as a family structure; everyone helps one another. Even though this is so, he believes that the nature’s ‘moral code’ can be broken causing violence against an individual to erupt in …show more content…
(Locke, 222). Locke further believes that is a fundamental right for the commonwealth to hold a revolution against the governance to restore (Locke, 225). Hobbes would see otherwise because there are no rights for the commonwealth, once they have become a part of the commonwealth. Their rights were given up to the sovereign while he keeps his rights in the state of nature since he is not bound by the covenant. This is justified in the passage, “There can be no breach of the Covenant on the part of the Sovereign and consequently, none of his subjects… can be freed from his Subjection” (97). The commonwealth was decided because a large group of individuals came together and decided to form one, ensuring that one of them would lead. Due to this belief, they undoubtedly gave up their rights and have sacrificed them to the sovereign to ensure safety, security, etc.
In conclusion, the two political philosophers, Hobbes and Locke, due to different time periods view man’s state of nature, establishment of the common wealth, property, and the overthrowing the government differently. While Locke had many great points considering the goodness of humankind, this had been proven false any times with not only people but rulers in history. All man is not good and according to Hobbes, must be forced into a covenant to preserve

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes believed that people can only live in peace when they turn over all rights to a sovereign. Hobbes social contract states that no matter what, you must abide by the sovereign, and nothing they do can violate the contract. Locke believed that if a sovereign starts to have too much power, the people have the right to rebel and fight for their rights. Hobbes views the sovereign as almost Godlike, to never be questioned and always obeyed. Locke on the other hand, follows a more modern view on government, power should not be absolute, and the people have the right to rebel if they feel they are being mistreated.…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Laws Of Nature

    • 1622 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Even though, the sovereign is devoid from accountability and licensed in action, unrestrained morally or legally, by allowing the subjects to retain an inalienable right, Hobbes has given the subjects a measure by which to evaluate the capabilities of the sovereign. Therefore, the lack of an institutional mechanism to bind the sovereign to abide by the laws of nature coupled with the subjects’ right of self-defence might lead to instances of rebellion, though prohibited and unjustifiable, would not be prevented and even provoked. Since the goal of the commonwealth must ensure the means for self-preservation, Hobbes broadens the concept of self-defence to incorporate normative, reputational, psychological, and corporal precautions. Hence, even though he is advocating for an indivisible, undivided, and unlimited sovereignty, he inadvertently allows the subjects to make private judgements about whether the commands of the sovereign endanger their wellbeing. This translates into a…

    • 1622 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hobbes believes that a powerful sovereign that is not part of the social contract is the only way to govern people, be in control, and have order in the country; he thinks that because he believes that people will be so fearful of the sovereign and death that they will not cause any problems. However, James Madison, Plato, and Martin Luther King Jr. seem to for the most part disagree with him. I personally disagree with Hobbes, and I agree with Madison, Plato, and King. Hobbes claims that Social unity and Civil peace are established through the commonwealth in the social contract. The State of Nature, in Hobbes’s opinion, is the equal opportunities of ability and desire which creates conflict, which makes people enemies of each others.…

    • 2532 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hobbes alleged that every man is another man’s mortal enemy. He also states that no matter what the sovereign does, whether it is unlawful, unjust, or violent, it does not constitute an encroachment of the social contract. Additionally, Hobbes states that the people have no right to rebel whatsoever. The sovereign’s will is the definition of good or evil for their subjects. He (the monarch) does not wrong, because lawful/unlawful and good/evil are at the discretion of the will of the sovereign.…

    • 1322 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Obviously the peace ideas did not work, and they had no other options. In the beginning of the Declaration the Constitutional Congress clearly states the reason for them wanting independence. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature 's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which…

    • 1417 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Leaders deceive their subjects because all men break their promises according to Machiavelli. If America were to have such a leader, the people would no longer be disappointed with the leaders that run the country. Therefore, promises that were made by the ruler could not be broken. All of the leader’s actions would be solely based on what events are happing now. If there were to be a mistake, the person in charge would not receive any negative backlash, because he does not make promises to his…

    • 1505 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Though overall, they mostly make the same points --that men are created equal, endowed with natural rights, and echange these rights for inclusion in society-- they are opposed in their views of the nature of man on an individual level. Hobbes is much more cynical, supposing that man is always out for his best interest, even if it means the harm of his neighbor; and John Locke takes the more righteous view of mankind. Which philosopher hit closer to the mark, in relation to actual human behavior, is hard to…

    • 1081 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights. The government is not to be used as a means to benefit from its subjects. No one man has any right over the rights of another be it by birth, power, or chance. Which is why Locke is so against the ideas of divine rights and absolute…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    His ideas of freedom was bound to God and all the judgement we go through in life should be in his eyes and his eyes alone. Voltaire as powerful as he is understood that the life surrounding his ideas of freedom will be challenged and had accepted that. Being able to achieve his ideas would have been long fought especially during eighteenth century where the monarchs still ruled over much of the European lives. Voltaire had believed that the monarch had no control over the lives of the people and that when they are forced to mourn the lives of the dead kings, queens, princesses and princes there should be no reason to do so since they had failed the lives of the millions of citizens that had ruled over there…

    • 840 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This principle is diametrically different from the Utilitarianism theory, where Mill allows someone to die if this sacrifice results in a greater measure of happiness for other people, for example dedicating one's life to save six other lives. For Kant, this situation is unacceptable and there is never an excuse for breaking universal laws. According to Kant, only a categorical imperative is an unconditional order, which leaves us with no choice to change an act if we give up our intentions and our action cannot be considered as accidental, because it is made under the law. However, Kant claims that, “man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays